Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:04:48.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Robert Lane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The period under review (Spring 1998—Autumn 1999) is one in which the prohibition of cartels under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty figured prominently, the Court of Justice clearing up a backlog of unfinished business relating back, in some cases, over a decade. The 1986 Polypropylene cartel decision was finally put to bed with the Court of Justice dismissing a number of appeals raised on the sole ground of the non-existence of the decision. It also dismissed an appeal involving the 1989 Welded Steel Mesh cartel decision except that, in an important development, for the first time the Court expressly applied Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an impartial tribunal, and reduced a Commission fine (marginally, knocking 50,000 ECUs off a 3 million ECU fine) as “reasonable satisfaction” for the excessive duration of proceedings (five-and-a-half years) before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance itself upheld on review the 1994 Commission decision in the Cartonboard cartel, leaving of major cartel cases only review of the Cement decision still outstanding.

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 227 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Decision 86/398 (1986) O.J. L230/1.

2. In a number of judgments the first of which is Case C–49/92P Commission v. Anic Partecipazione, judgment of 8 Jul. 1999, not yet reported.

3. Decision 89/515 (1989) O.J. L260/1.

4. Case C–185/95P Baustahlgewebe v. Commission [1998] E.C.R. 1–8417.

5. Decision 94/601 (1994) O.J. L234/14, upheld in a number of judgments the first of which is Case T–295/94 Buchmann v. Commission [1998] E.C.R. 11–813.

6. Decision 94/815 (1994) O.J. L343/1, under review as Cases T–25 etc./95 Cimenteries CBR and Ors. v. Commission, pending.

7. Decision 89/190 (1989) O.J. L74/1.

8. Cases T–79 etc./89 BASF and Ors v. Commission [1992] E.C.R. 11–315.

9. Case C–137/92P Commission v. BASF and Ors [1994] E.C.R. 1–2555.

10. Decision 94/599 (1994) O.J. L234/14.

11. Cases T–305 etc./94 Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Ors. v. Commission, judgment of 20 Apr. 1999, not yet reported.

12. Case C–238/99P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij v. Commission, pending.

13. Decision 85/202 (1995) O.J. L85/1.

14. Cases 89 etc./85 Ahlström and Ors. v. Commission [1993] E.C.R. 1–1307.

15. Case C–310/97P Commission v. AssiDomän Kraft Products, judgment of 14 Sept. 1999, not yet reported.

16. [1999] Eu.L.R. 501.

17. Gibbs Mew v. Gemmell [1998] Eu.L.R. 588; Trent Taverns v. Sykes [1999] Eu.L.R. 492; Crehan v. Courage, judgment of 27 May 1999, not yet reported.

18. Cases T–68, 77 & 78/89 Società italiano Vetro v. Commission [1992] E.C.R. 11–1403.

19. Decision 97/624 (1997) O.J. L258/32.

20. Case T–228/97 Irish Sugar v. Commission, judgment of 7 Oct. 1999, not yet reported.

21. at para.63.

22. at para.66.

23. Cases C–395 A. 396/96P Compagnie Maritime Beige v. Commission, pending.

24. Reg.1310/97 (1997) O.J. L180/1; see discussion at (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 717.Google Scholar

25. Decision 1999/153 (Berteismann/Kirch/Premiere) O.J. 1999 L53/1; Decision 1999/154 (Deutsche Telekom/BetaRaearch) O.J. 1999 L53/31; Case M.1524 (Airtours/First Choice), decision of 22 Sept 1999, not yet published.

26. Decision 1999/594 (Samsung/AST Research Inc) (1999) O.J. L225/12.

27. Decision 1999/459 (A. P. Møller) (1999) O.J. L183/29.

28. Case M.1497 (Sanofi/Synthélabo), decision of 28 Jul. 1999, not yet published.

29. Case M.1616 (Banco Santander Centro Hispanio/Champalimaud), decision of 20 Jul. 1999, not yet published.

30. Case T–102/96 Gencor v. Commission, judgment of 25 Mar. 1999, not yet reported; this judgment is discussed in 172.

31. Laki Kilapailunrajoituksista 11-11 i § (303/1998), in force 1 Oct 1998.

32. See the Commission Green Paper on vertical restraints in competition policy, COM(96)721 final; Follow-Up to the Green Paper on vertical restraints: Communication on the application of the Community competition rules to vertical restraints, (1998) O.J. C365/3.

33. Reg.17/62 (1962) J.O. 24.

34. Reg.1216/1999 (1999) O.J. L148/5.

35. Case C–234/89 Delimitis v. Henninger Bräu [1991] E.C.R. 1–935.

36. Reg.19/65 (1965) J.O. 533.

37. Reg.1215/1999 (1999) O.J. L148/1.

38. Draft Commission Regulation on the application of Art.81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and restrictive practices, not yet published.

39. Draft Reg., art.2(1).

40. Art.1(2).

41. Art.1(4). The Commission had proposed that this be written into Reg.19 (Commission proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation No.19/65, COM(98)546 final) but on it the regulation remained silent.

42. Arts.3, 4.

43. Arts.5, 6.

44. Art.7.

45. Draft Guidelines on vertical restraints attached to the Draft Regulation, Chap.III 1.

46. COM(98)546 final, Explanatory Memorandum.

47. White Paper on Modernisation of the Rules Implementing Arts.85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, Programme No.99/027.

48. Reg.17, art.9(1).

49. White Paper, para.76.

50. Para.48.

51. Para.51.

52. Para.78.

53. Para.42.

54. Para.9.

55. Paras.69 ff.

56. Paras.79–81.

57. “Perspektiven des Europäischen Kartellrechts”, a position paper delivered by Dr Dieter Wolf to the Frankfurter Institut—Stiftung Marktwirtschaft und Politik, 8 Jul. 1999.